SEASON of mists and mellow fruitfulness. Indeed. Season of being knackered if you're a football and hurling hack. Halfway between the two All Ireland finals, there's a feeling of fatigue at the conclusion of the hurling and trepidation at the prospect of the football.

Then throw in the excitement of the under 21 finals, normally the hurling, but in the last two years, because of football replays, both codes have been decided on the same day. The hurling final has had a splendid reputation in recent years and if Sunday's didn't quite stick to the script, the football - for a change - compensated with an absorbing match between Kerry and Cavan.

In the middle of this activity, it's frequently difficult to reflect on anything as the championship hurtles full tilt towards conclusion. Not here, though. This week's contemplation is directed at one of the dominant factors in Gaelic games over the past couple of years, the manager.

Managers are generally believed to have had their genesis in the 1970s when Kevin Heffernan and Mick O'Dwyer became inextricably linked with Dublin and Kerry. The cult of the manager's personality was a source of vexation for many Gaels who saw it all as a mere aping of the structures that governed English soccer (or, in fact, anyone else's soccer but that wouldn't be quite as vexatious).

To date, the phenomenon back to the 1970s is unsatisfactory as it ignores the input of coaches and trainers to the fortunes of county teams going all the way back to the last century and the dawn of the championship JP O'Sullivan of Laune Rangers in Killorglin developed ideas on preparation in the 1890s and his son Eamonn followed in his footsteps and was associated with four decades of All Ireland successes in Kerry, to take one county as an example.

What happened in the 70s was that as media expanded, so did coverage and the manager became an obvious target: not quite as callow and nervous as the players (although this isn't an inflexible rule) and possessed of an overview, he had the maturity, experience and where possible, the anecdotes that could light up a reporter's eyes.

For a while, the manager as tactician was more important in football. Dublin and Kerry, in particular, had some great players but the unhappy evolution of football to the stage where its rules are no longer capable of protecting the more skilful team from being unfairly undermined - surely the purpose of regulation - was underway.

Hurling tactics became important but not to the same detrimental effect. Given that the range of the game's skills is broader than football's, tactics became a matter of sometimes marshalling less esteemed skills to confound the more conventionally prized.

Setting aside the more negative connotations of tactical planning, the positive nature of managerial contributions can be seen over by reference to the past 20 years.

The last 10 years has seen remarkable breakthroughs in football and latterly hurling. If we establish a sort of novelty index based on the average number of years since an All Ireland winning county previously won the title, we see that the data between 1976 and 85 gives a figure of 2.9.

Even allowing for the effect on the average of Dublin and Kerry winning titles so frequently during the 10 years in question, the jump over the next 10 years, 1986-95, to a figure of 10 times that 29.7 shows that football experienced fundamental change.

Hurling is currently undergoing a strong revival but that began during the earlier 10 year span, 76-85, when Offaly won a first All Ireland and Galway a first in five decades, giving an index of 17.5 which has fallen in the past 10 years but only slightly, to 16.

The extent to which this change has been influenced by managers hardly needs explaining but the manner in which considerations other than the number of All Ireland medals in the cupboard have become paramount, is interesting.

Organisation and the sort of attention to detail that Wexford's Liam Griffin made newsworthy last week in the aftermath of the hurling final, have assumed a vital role in a team's prospects. The first such manager in the last 20 years was probably Sean Boylan who absorbed the precepts of virtually every discipline necessary for preparing a team.

Boylan's ability to vary training routines became characteristic and within the controlled setting, the players' talents for football and leadership emerged. Those managers who have made the highest level from unlikely beginnings, have generally needed four elements.

One, players of a certain level of attainment: In the last 20 years only Meath and the hurlers of Offaly (1981 and 85) Clare and Wexford have won senior All Irelands without players who had already picked up equivalent medals at minor or under 21.

Two, a structure: The functions of managers vary from calling the shots on a big day in Croke Park to turning on showers and making tea. Successful managers put in place support systems both for individual players and the panel in general.

Retaining the services of physical trainers, pyschologists, dieticians etc is part of the self knowledge all good managers have. They can't do everything themselves and consequently bring in outside expertise. If a manager is uncertain of his capacity to read the game, selectors who can make good that deficiency are appointed.

With this in place, an on pitch structure is needed, a gameplan that suits the strengths of the players and can be easily absorbed - and most importantly not forgotten, even in moments of stress.

Three, confidence: This does not initially refer to the team's confidence although that will follow. It means the confidence that players have in the manager. Most managers are appointed in the face of some scepticism but if they're any good, they'll have dispelled it quite quickly.

Players need to believe that a manager knows what he's up to. They need to see his theories bearing fruit. Once that happens, the general realisation dawns that what the manager tells them usually comes to pass. Players develop a confidence of their own.

Four, becoming hard to beat: This determination not to lose is frequently distorted to the stage where defeat is taken as almost a guarantee of future success. Of course it's not. Acquiring experience is important but acquiring too much experience of defeat is best avoided.

Discipline is actually the main consideration here. It means everyone on a panel observing the same rules and the cultivation of distaste for those players who won't. When everyone has been through the same hardships and sacrifice, the team functions better as a unit and players do more for each other and distrust is minimised.

Respecting players is also important. If they are treated seriously, they start taking themselves seriously and will inevitably be more resilient on the field.